Talk:Acceptance and commitment therapy

Tone: too much fluff

This article contains way too much unexplained jargon and reads like a bunch of fluff. Let's pare down to empirically supportable statements and completely get rid of trade terms that don't help the audience understand the main point of the article. It also, as others have pointed out, reads like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.224.235 (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

With all due respect to Dr. Hayes' edit, this article suffers from a conflict of interest. In addition, the style of writing does not demonstrate a Neutral Point of View as required by wiki. While the edits Dr. Hayes has made to his article may make it unsuitable for the Advertisement tag, it remains predicated and substantialy referenced through Dr. Hayes' own work rather than independently. Some sections are extracts from Dr. Hayes' speeches.

In the introduction, the phrase "empirically based" implies that ACT is "derived from or provable through evidence and/or experiment". This claim is not properly substantiated in the article. Furthermore, the underpinning contexts such as Relational Frame Theory are also theories originated by Dr. Hayes. I have therefore tagged the article as representating a conflict of interest rather than the more aggressive tag of it being an advertisement. I have also tagged it as being based primarily upon one source, Dr. Hayes, and with the tag requesting an improvement to the references used, as they are also primarily of Dr. Hayes' authorship.

I believe that the addition of balancing and contextualising text is required in the article, together with relevant, independent, peer-reviewed citations in order to remove the tags. LookingGlass (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that a key reference in the article, the Association for Contextual Behavioural Science http://www.contextualpsychology.org/hayes_luoma_bond_masuda_lillis_in_press_1 states in the abstract to Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006: There are not enough well-controlled studies to conclude that ACT is generally more effective than other active treatments across the range of problems examined, but so far the data are promising.. This statement, which is far from the strength of the claims in the article, appears to be an independent observation merely of the study's own conclusion.

LookingGlass (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple solution to this problem. The conflict of interest is not so much in that Dr Hayes is promoting his own works, but that in essence Dr Hayes is the originator of the information, and this the information is original research. As this sort of information is a violation of Wikipedia's standards there is only one solution: If Dr Hayes is willing, he should go through the article and add citations to sources that support the information shown here. He must also at the same time remove any POV statements which infer conclusions from the data which originated in his own works. Doing so would not only validate the article far beyond any self proclaimed statements, but would lend some credence to his own conclusions even though they may not be mentioned in the article directly. I would be interested to see information on what other experts (like the aformentioned Luoma, Bond, Masuda, and Lillis) have written on the subject. Unfortunately it seems the only person who can resolve this is Dr Hayes himself since he's the only one who knows where he got all his data. KrisWood (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Advert

This line seems a *little* bit too much like an advertisement:

ACT is considered an empirical psychotherapy, its practitioners and researchers are dedicated to the development of science and empirical evaluation of its effects

-Sayfadeen

WHS. Added POV tag. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53 6 October 2006 (GMT).

I think the first part is not an advert, but I did soften it. The last part is actually true (go to contextualpsychology.org and decide for yourself), but it is unnecessary so I removed it. - Steve Hayes

With all due respect Dr Hayes, this article is predicated and substantialy referenced through your own work rather than independently. In the introduction, the phrase "empirically based" implies that ACT is "derived from or provable through evidence and/or experiment". This claim is not substantiated in the article. Furthermore, the underpinning contexts such as Relational Frame Theory are also yours. I have therefore tagged the article as representating a conflict of interest rather than the more aggressive tage of it being an advertisement. I believe that the addition of balancing and contextualising text is required together with relevant citations in prder to remove this.

LookingGlass (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that the historical roots of ACT to be found in Buddhist philosophy and literature are 
not acknowledged or explored in the discussions.

Larry Agriesti I found it interesting, given the authors have gone a long way to acknowledge links with other approaches, that no mention is made of hypnosis in Acceptance & Committment Therapy, Hayes,Strosahl,Wilson, no doubt others have already commented on the use of hypnotic induction throughout, for instance page 193, observer exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.153.203 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr Hayes,I think the reason take issue with the previously mentioned statements, and they may correct me if I'm wrong, is not so much that you are making statements supporting your own work, but that you are not providing independent sources to verify that information. To assert within the scope of Wikipedia's goals that something is empirical, for example, one must provide a citation to a clinical study which concludes this very thing. Please see Wikipedia's citation guidelines for more info on what is a citable source: Wikipedia:Citing_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisWood (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ACBS website?

At the bottom of the page, it states "ACT did not arise from these related areas directly — it is the result of a 25 year course of development inside Western science — but it arrived at a similar place which is interesting in and of itself. The connections [between ACT and Scientology,est,etc] have been explored in several articles that can be found on the ACBS website. The intellectual history of ACT can be found there as well." I've found the intellectual history of ACT on the website, but I feel I've scoured the website and can find nothing about ACT and its "connections" with scientology, est, or whatever else. Could you be a little more specific please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.250.128 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this article and it had one person suggesting it was 'cultlike' with a following and being intolerant of internal dissent with a take it or leave it mentality. I have changed the wording which seems to be too NPOV violating and unsupported by the citation. fwiw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.87.48 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Study Results (April 2009)

I thought this article might be of interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm

Quoting the article, in part (emphasis mine):

"There are now a substantial number of controlled trials investigating the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). This meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of ACT relative to waiting lists, psychological placebos, treatment as usual, and established therapies."

"Analyzed separately ACT was superior to waiting lists and psychological placebos (effect size = 0.68) and treatment as usual (effect size = 0.42). However, ACT was not significantly more effective than established treatments (effect size = 0.18, p = 0.13). Also, ACT was not superior to control conditions for the distress problems (anxiety/depression: effect size = 0.03, p = 0.84)."

"The results reveal that ACT is more effective than control conditions for several problem domains, but there is no evidence yet that ACT is more effective than established treatments."

Please read the full article for more information and to review the quotes above in context. I do not believe those quotes violates copyright laws since I am providing the citation as given on that webpage. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with editing wiki articles so someone may need to clean this up for me.

Citation: Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (2009, April 3). Does A New Popular Form Of Psychotherapy (Acceptance And Commitment Therapy) Work?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm

I hope someone can use this information to further develop the main article for this subject. I believe it may assist in the conflicts above so that the main page could be more balanced and informative. --76.30.105.105 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Evidence for claim of "empirically based" treatment

Returning, I have once again been drawn to search for the references and validation of the theory and claims in this article. I have found the following:

Refs 1, 5, 6, 9, 14 and 15 are authored by Hayes (15 is addressed below) Refs 2, 4, 10, 16 and 18 refer to a website "Behaviour Analyst Online" where I could find no corresponding reference material Ref 8 is a listing on the APA Chapter 12 site

The remaining references: 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 are as follows:

ref #3 Contains substantial parts of the text of this article. It is an account by a Dr and ACT trainer in Australia (Harris) in a "popular" psychology magazine. I was unable to check the references given in the article.

ref #7 I was unable to locate any reference online to this but found something under the hits I got that seems similar. See new reference at bottom of this.

ref #11 An abstract can be found here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h78q3474700747mg/ it reads that "well-being outcomes were mediated to a degree by ACT"

ref #12 is incomplete.

ref #13 Öst, L. G. (March 2008). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258216 "Efficacy of the third wave of behavioral therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Behaviour research and therapy 46 (3): 296–321. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2007.12.005. PMID 18258216. states: "none of the third wave therapies fulfilled the criteria for empirically supported treatments"

ref #15 The abstract on ERIC at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ804033&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ804033 states: "Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) are both innovative behavioral treatments ... This article discusses these similarities and differences"

ref #17 Cloud, John (2006-02-05). "The Third Wave of Therapy". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156613-9,00.html/. This article seems to me to be critical of ACT in many ways stating for instance that: "Hayes and his followers seem to be offering ACT as a sort of psychological Rosetta stone, a key for interpreting all interior events. At the very least, as Hayes' mentor Barlow has pointed out, ACT seems to lack the scientific virtue of parsimony."

I was able to find one reference that did appear to support ACT:

http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/772 "A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression" The abstract states that this research was on a trail 101 patients and that: "the results suggest that ACT is a viable and disseminable treatment, the effectiveness of which appears equivalent to that of CT"

There would seem to be therefore no evidence to support the article's claims that it is "is an empirically based" treatment with the inference that the empirical data substantiates ACT's claims to be an effective treatment. The citations provided by Dr Hayes hinself, if anything, seem to demonstrate the reverse. This cannot be taken to show that the treatment and theory is not well founded, simply that its claims to an empirical provenance are misplaced and misleading. The article should be revised to accord with the evidence base that is available.

LookingGlass (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Go to an academic library please all armchair psychologists

ACT has a broad empirical base. The comments on here about it lacking this is almost laughable. Please go to an academic library with the proper journal access, instead of basing your OPINIONS on Time Maganzine and the like. Also, here's an idea, have some knowledge about psychological theories, before you criticize them. Without this, it's like me trying to prove that plutonium isn't radioactive. Just in case you don't have access to a academic library, try these for starters.

Ruiz, F. J. (2010). A review of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) empirical evidence: Correlational, experimental psychopathology, component and outcome studies. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 125-162.

Dalrymple, K.L. & Herbert, J.D. (2007). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder: A pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31, 543-568.

McCracken, L. M., Vowles, K. E., & Eccleston, C. (2005). Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: A preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1335-1346.

As you can see, none of these have the name Hayes in them, so therefore, Stephen Hayes wasn't involved in the study. And those journals are widely read and peer reviewed. ALL psychological theories are constantly being reviewed, studied and discussed. Hence the term theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.81.140 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating

The ancient Chinese would have said "know yourself, and you will reach balance", or something like that. We describe it on hundreds of pages of theory. But hey, that's our civilization as opposed to theirs - we relate to the world primarily through categorizing it. None of this is meant in disrespect to the people who spend long hours at hard work trying to help people with psychological problems. It's just an observation that I thought it'd be interesting to make. That is, if I got the correct idea of the procedure from the article.

This talk page also shows that as much as standards are being upheld and improved at Wikipedia, the chances when pitting Wiki work against peer-reviewed literature and professional researchers are still slim. I have absolutely no idea who is in the right here, as I haven't read a single line of any of the referenced works. But I do recommend to anyone trying to prove one way or the other to limit themselves to scientific ("peer-reviewed") journals, and also to check for impact factor, citation counts, recency, and the number and quality of references the paper you are referencing itself makes. That's how weight is thrown around in the scientific community. :-) 89.102.231.111 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) User:Misacek01 currently logged out

Empirical base of ACT

A good list of empirical studies on ACT can be found on the ACBS website (www.contextualpsychology.org). We are very close to 50 randomized controlled trials as of summer 2011. Some of them are small and for sure we have a long way to go, but that is how science is.

If quality of evidence is the focus here is a quick and dirty method: just look at the top clinical psychology journal in the world, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Here are the studies there (and one more in substance abuse is very close as of 9/2/2011):

Twohig, M. P., Hayes, S. C., Plumb, J. C., Pruitt, L. D., Collins, A. B., Hazlett-Stevens, H. & Woidneck, M. R. (2010) A randomized clinical trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy vs. Progressive Relaxation Training for obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 705-716.

Varra, A. A., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., & Fisher, G. (2008). A randomized control trial examining the effect of Acceptance and Commitment Training on clinician willingness to use evidence-based pharmacotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 449-458.

Gregg, J. A., Callaghan, G. M., Hayes, S. C., & Glenn-Lawson, J. L. (2007). Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(2), 336-343.

Bach, P. & Hayes, S. C. (2002). The use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70 (5), 1129-1139.

If you expand to the top two journals in cognitive behavior therapy (BRAT and Behavior Therapy) you pick up another dozen RCTs from labs all around the world. Both the American Psychological Association and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the US recognize ACT as evidence-based (the links are now in the main article on ACT). ACT is part of a larger research program from an entire research and practice community as some time on the ACBS website will show. It's a serious effort and we welcome criticism.

Steven C. Hayes (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction of case for "acceptance and commitment therapy" to "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy"

Wikipedia style as laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters states that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun." However I clam an exception needs to be made in the case of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for two reasons: First, the name is title-cased in all source materials, without exception; and second and more importantly, there are now enough acceptance-based movements or techniques within the field of applied psychology that not to acknowledge proper names as such (e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, versus acceptance and commitment therapy) begins to risk confusion over whether the reference is to a specific therapy or acceptance-based therapies in general. Thus title case ought to be used for clarity. I don't know if an exception needs more discussion than this, but I'm certainly open to it. Whole Sight (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Acceptance and commitment therapy → Acceptance and Commitment Therapy – There are now several acceptance-based or mindfulness-based therapies in applied psychology - as the article mentions, these include not only ACT, but "Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Functional Analytic Psychotherapy, and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy." Even a cursory web search reveals many such references to "acceptance-based therapies," "an acceptance-based approach," etc. E.g. Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: a preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase, Acceptance Therapy & Generalized Anxiety Disorder, ec.

Thus, adopting within Wikipedia the widespread usage outside Wikipedia of proper names for these different therapies - e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - will aid in distinguishing a particular therapy from the more general topic, when it may occur, of acceptance-based therapies, as well as from ad hoc mentions of a single new approach that is described as "acceptance-based" or an "acceptance therapy" but has not yet been codified further. Whole Sight (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Sources mention Association for Contextual Behavioral Science in relation to Acceptance and commitment therapy. Would it be appropriate to merge in material from Association for Contextual Behavioral Science into a dedicated section in Acceptance and commitment therapy? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Association claims a broader mission than just Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (or ACT). This broader mission is said to include research into, and application of, Relational frame theory (a.k.a. RFT, a behavioral theory concerned with verbal learning and cognition) in contexts other than psychotherapy. However at present the Wikipedia article for Relational frame theory gives only an extremely brief list of applications - only Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and a measurement tool are mentioned. This tends to suggest that at present, ACBS is still mostly centered around ACT, and only around RFT to the extent that RFT supports ACT. So part of justifying or supporting a separate article for ACBS might involve the fleshing out of the article on RFT as having significant additional applications, if reliable sources can be found to do this. Whole Sight (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RFT has more applications than just ACT. There's a book on autism, mostly relying on RFT (not completely), but not ACT at all: see here. There's a study of 2012 on the IRAP (a RFT-application) as predictive of relapse in substance abuse. RFT is larger (and I think more important, but that's a subjective evaluation) than ACT. ACBS can be mentioned in the ACT-article, but not merged; just as you cannot merge ACT and RFT.--Queeste (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me like the organization is referenced more often with regards to this therapy than RFT so a merge to this article would be better. Honestly, your point about it covering more than one subject is part of the reason why I thought deletion was the appropriate course. This is an alternative route that would preserve the information while satisfying the fact there is no real established notability for the organization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear: this discussion has just been finished. ACBS stays a separate article: no redirect, no merging. These are just synonyms for deletion. Discussion is closed as decided by an administrator.--Queeste (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I see no indication that there has been any discussion aside from here and the AfD and the discussion here was initiated by the admin who closed the AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can read, thanks. Makes no difference: discussion has been closed. Merging (redirect) has been mentioned in that discussion. The conclusion was clear: ACBS can stay. Now if everyone would suddenly change ideas and agree: ok. If not ...? I would have accepted deletion without problem; as mentioned in that discussion. Silk Tork decided otherwise. So now I expect loyal acception by the opponents, unless completely new arguments would arise; this is clearly not the case.--Queeste (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)